Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pokémon Sage


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep‎__EXPECTED_UNCONNECTED_PAGE__. Withdrawn by nominator, no !votes for deletion at time of withdrawal. (non-admin closure) ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 10:14, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

Pokémon Sage

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

After performing a standard BEFORE, I found very little in the way of sources beyond what is used in the article to indicate the subject is notable. The game is incomplete and has only released a demo, and is a fanmade project. While it's possible it may become notable in the future due to the fact that it seems to be an ongoing project, it doesn't seem like that it will reach completion for quite some time. There just isn't any SIGCOV or in depth reviews to help in this regard. Pokelego999 (talk) 13:57, 26 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Pokelego999 (talk) 13:57, 26 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Weak keep The Complex article seems good, and while International Business Times is considered unreliable, it cites this, significant coverage from a source that is at least considered by WP:VG to be situational. Combining that with Kotaku, I see a case for erring on the side of keeping the article. The completion status of a game has never been related to how notable it was, as Metroid Dread had an article for numerous years prior to the actual game being a thing. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 14:44, 26 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep - even if you can't find more sources, there's already three present in the article. A game being finished, incomplete, or cancelled, has no bearing on whether or not a game (or any product) is notable. Sergecross73   msg me  15:44, 26 July 2023 (UTC)
 * My concern with that was that the sources had seemingly dried up and had been dried up for a while. There wasn't much beyond the few in the article. There are quite literally only a handful of sources, which is not satisfying SIGCOV for me, especially when it comes to an unofficial game that hasn't received significant updates in close to ten years. It really just doesn't seem generally notable. Pokelego999 (talk) 16:38, 26 July 2023 (UTC)
 * The WP:GNG (SIGCOV) requires multiple sources, and 3 is multiple. Sergecross73   msg me  16:54, 26 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Exactly - even 2 significant sources could potentially qualify if they are big enough, like 2 books on the subject, but the bar's somewhat higher for games since they tend to get shorter online articles, 3 still passes that bar. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 17:25, 26 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Given the arguments presented, I suppose I'll have to agree on this. Can't really argue against guidelines. Pokelego999 (talk) 01:45, 27 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep as per the reliable sources coverage discussed above and in the article, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 21:33, 26 July 2023 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.